Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on July 05, 2015, 11:42:25 AM
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.
I think it would be that builders of the simulation arose from natural selection and evolution as did we.
There is no magic in there like there is for a God, a complex thing coming from nowhere.
A being so advanced to us perhaps billions of years in advance with technology, would probably look like gods to us. But ,they would not be, anymore than we are gods to ants.
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.
I think it would be that builders of the simulation arose from natural selection and evolution as did we.
There is no magic in there like there is for a God, a complex thing coming from nowhere.
A being so advanced to us perhaps billions of years in advance with technology, would probably look like gods to us. But ,they would not be, anymore than we are gods to ants.
Thanks for your response.
I hope I have stayed within scientific parameters in that science does not dismiss an infinite intelligent universe or a simulated universe. I would also hazard that such a universe and intelligence does not necessarily have to arise (that universe being infinite) nor evolved through Darwinian evolution nor in fact the intelligence to be associated with life at all.
Funnily enough I think your main objection to my suggestion is theological. Can something which creates a simulated universe possibly be construed as God as understood by monotheism?
I would say yes since the creation, existence and maintenance of our universe if simulated is entirely dependent on that creator.
we could baulk and curse our creator or bless and be grateful or ignore our creator.
I would add that all this would remain true even if our creator had been evolved.
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
Is it? I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
Is it? I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.
I can't see how a God created universe has any more problems than a universe that just poufed itself into existence or one that is infinite.
That aside, Bostrom one of the current thinkers in this area thinks
that epistemologically, it would be possible to tell whether we were living in a simulation. For example a window could popup saying: ''this is a simulation''. Theologically speaking revelation might be analogous to it....So you see science and theology both satisfied.
-
Is it? I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.
I can't see how a God created universe has any more problems than a universe that just poufed itself into existence or one that is infinite.
If you believe the Universe just poufed itself into existence, you don't have to explain the existence of a creator.
That aside, Bostrom one of the current thinkers in this area thinks
that epistemologically, it would be possible to tell whether we were living in a simulation. For example a window could popup saying: ''this is a simulation''. Theologically speaking revelation might be analogous to it....So you see science and theology both satisfied.
You'd have to have an obliging creator and you'd have to have a way to be sure you didn't imagine the pop-up/revelation.
-
Is it? I think a simulated Universe has exactly the same problems as a god created universe; it's not falsifiable and it only defers the questions to another level.
I can't see how a God created universe has any more problems than a universe that just poufed itself into existence or one that is infinite.
If you believe the Universe just poufed itself into existence, you don't have to explain the existence of a creator.
1: It's unfalsifiable
2: It has to be believed
3: It begs the question how can something pouf itself into existence when we don't observe that happening.
4: The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the existence of the creator.
-
1: It's unfalsifiable
God.
2: It has to be believed
God.
3: It begs the question how can something pouf itself into existence when we don't observe that happening.
God.
4: The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the existence of the creator.
The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the current lack of definite knowledge.
-
1: It's unfalsifiable
Yes.
2: It has to be believed
No. It's not compulsory.
3: It begs the question how can something pouf itself into existence when we don't observe that happening.
Yes, how did God pouf itself into existence?
4: The explanation just seems to exist only to eliminate an explanation for the existence of the creator.
No.
-
1: It's unfalsifiable
Yes.
2: It has to be believed
No. It's not compulsory.
No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.
In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).
-
No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.
It doesn't have to be believed. You can discuss the hypothesis without believing it to be true.
In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).
It could, but then the Universe didn't have to pouf itself into existence.
-
No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.
It doesn't have to be believed. You can discuss the hypothesis without believing it to be true.
In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).
It could, but then the Universe didn't have to pouf itself into existence.
But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.
So lets recap
Simulated universes an acceptable hypothesis
Infinite universes an acceptable hypothesis
Intelligent universes an acceptable hypothesis
plus it is acceptable theologically to refer to God as an infinite intelligent universe..........
What's your problem with God?
-
But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.
Much harder to prove God is infinitely old. At least we are pretty sure the Universe exists.
So lets recap
Simulated universes an acceptable hypothesis
Infinite universes an acceptable hypothesis
OK so far.
Intelligent universes an acceptable hypothesis
But nobody has put that one forward on this thread. Why have you suddenly brought it up?
plus it is acceptable theologically to refer to God as an infinite intelligent universe..........
[/quote]
This is the first tie you've mentioned pantheism.
What's your problem with God?
There's no evidence of her and there is no hypothesis about the beginning of the Universe that works with a god but not without one. There's no point in pretending God exists.
-
But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.
Much harder to prove God is infinitely old. At least we are pretty sure the Universe exists.
So lets recap
Simulated universes an acceptable hypothesis
Infinite universes an acceptable hypothesis
OK so far.
Intelligent universes an acceptable hypothesis
But nobody has put that one forward on this thread. Why have you suddenly brought it up?
plus it is acceptable theologically to refer to God as an infinite intelligent universe..........
This is the first tie you've mentioned pantheism.
What's your problem with God?
There's no evidence of her and there is no hypothesis about the beginning of the Universe that works with a god but not without one. There's no point in pretending God exists.
[/quote]
Well perhaps one day you'll explain your last assertion but I won't hold my breath. Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.
Nobody has stated that God exists merely that the simulated theory hypothesis makes him respectable as a hypothesis again and there ain't nothing you can do about that it seems.
Yes I suppose if we are classifying God as a complete universe then that is technically pantheism......
But not in our universe which is afterall the simulation.
I look forward to a clear exposition from you on the factors that would prevent God from being that which could simulate
a universe.
-
That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.
-
That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.
As indeed was that sentence! Why not just say, "That was almost incomprehensible"? ;D
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.
Because Brian Greene exists.
-
That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.
As indeed was that sentence! Why not just say, "That was almost incomprehensible"? ;D
It was a Douglas Adams reference ::)
-
No I mean It has to be believed rather than known and I thought that was precisely the kind of belief that was anathema to you guys......but seemingly acceptable in this case by you.
It doesn't have to be believed. You can discuss the hypothesis without believing it to be true.
In terms of God having to pouf himself into existence. Firstly God could be an intelligent infinite universe or even an evolved being (see earlier reply).
It could, but then the Universe didn't have to pouf itself into existence.
But I think you'll agree that proving the universe is infinitely old is rather difficult.......given the big bang and all that.
Except that gravity slows down time so if you wind back to the big bang the gravity of the universe increases. Half the size of the universe and time doubles. Half it again and time doubles again.....you never actually get back to the big bang as time tends towards infinity.
-
That was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.
As indeed was that sentence! Why not just say, "That was almost incomprehensible"? ;D
It was a Douglas Adams reference ::)
Did you google it? :)
-
Didn't need to. I have a memory.
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
The existence of an infinite intelligent universe (God) making a simulated universe (ours) fits the scientifically acceptable and the monotheistic creation narrative, IMHO.
Because Brian Greene exists.
..........although I think you'll find he himself has stated it is possible he could be a simulation.
-
Didn't need to. I have a memory.
Yes, albeit sometimes a selective one.
-
Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.
I thought I had made it clear that I do not think that a simulated universe is an acceptable hypothesis. It has exactly the same issues as the God hypothesis. In fact, it is the God hypothesis.
-
I think of theism as an early form the Matrix idea. We live in a false reality contrived by some hidden higher power with its own agenda. Far out man, pass the joint.
-
Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.
I thought I had made it clear that I do not think that a simulated universe is an acceptable hypothesis. It has exactly the same issues as the God hypothesis. In fact, it is the God hypothesis.
That's great! Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science. So...you can stop fighting with the believers.
-
Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?
Because such simulated universes follow a set of defined rules.
-
That's great! Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science. So...you can stop fighting with the believers.
No. The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable. As a form of the God hypothesis, the Universal simulation is unfalsifiable therefore it is not a scientific idea.
-
That's great! Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science. So...you can stop fighting with the believers.
No. The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable. As a form of the God hypothesis, the Universal simulation is unfalsifiable therefore it is not a scientific idea.
But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists. Some of them feel it needs to be retired.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/
(Try some of the other ideas that need to be retired also.....)
-
That's great! Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science. So...you can stop fighting with the believers.
No. The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable. As a form of the God hypothesis, the Universal simulation is unfalsifiable therefore it is not a scientific idea.
But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists. Some of them feel it needs to be retired.
That's nonsense. Falsifiability is the sharpest tool in the box and will always be of value wherever it can be used. That doesn't mean science is about falsifiability and nothing else. That doesn't mean that falsifiability is regarded as 'not useful'. Carroll's point is merely that increasingly theoreticians are working in areas where experimentalists cannot effectively tread, but that should not define such work as non-science simply because it is not practical to set up experiments to test it.
-
Yes...so you cannot dismiss an idea merely because it cannot be falsified. That's the point.
Finally at least some scientists are beginning to realize that knowledge cannot be tied down by our limited methods and limited definitions of reality.
-
Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.
I thought I had made it clear that I do not think that a simulated universe is an acceptable hypothesis. It has exactly the same issues as the God hypothesis. In fact, it is the God hypothesis.
But simulated universes exist as computer programmers have simulated them!
In terms of being unfalsifiable, that is something the simulated universe hypothesis shares with other multiverses however Bostrom has introduced us to the idea of a pop up window appearing telling us what the real nature of the universe is. That casts a question mark over the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis.
-
Yes...so you cannot dismiss an idea merely because it cannot be falsified. That's the point.
Finally at least some scientists are beginning to realize that knowledge cannot be tied down by our limited methods and limited definitions of reality.
More accurately, what it means, is we recognise that models that cannot be tested in practice are not necessarily invalid or worthless or wrong, but such ideas will not gain the level of traction as ideas that gain robustness through intensive testing. They will more likely remain in the 'speculative' camp as opposed to the 'well established' camp.
-
Yes...so you cannot dismiss an idea merely because it cannot be falsified. That's the point.
Finally at least some scientists are beginning to realize that knowledge cannot be tied down by our limited methods and limited definitions of reality.
More accurately, what it means, is we recognise that models that cannot be tested in practice are not necessarily invalid or worthless or wrong, but such ideas will not gain the level of traction as ideas that gain robustness through intensive testing. They will more likely remain in the 'speculative' camp as opposed to the 'well established' camp.
I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.
Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'. Some more speculative than others. Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so why not the 'God hypothesis'. That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.
-
I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.
Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'. Some more speculative than others. Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'. That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.
The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings. A scientific definition of god would require clarity and definition.
-
I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.
Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'. Some more speculative than others. Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'. That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.
The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings. A scientific definition of god would require clarity and definition.
I agree with that. That is why 'Spirituality' needs to be emphasized rather than 'religion'. We need to understand the difference and focus more on the former.
Hey!...I like the way this discussion is going! These boards do make a difference...it seems.
-
:D :D
-
:D :D
We are now ready for Dawkins...I think. Bring him in someone! :D
-
:D :D
We are now ready for Dawkins...I think. Bring him in someone! :D
He won't come: not till he sees the colour of your money! :D
-
I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.
Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'. Some more speculative than others. Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'. That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.
The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings.
Loaded on by atheists.
-
I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.
Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'. Some more speculative than others. Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'. That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.
The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings. A scientific definition of god would require clarity and definition.
An intelligent infinite universe.
-
But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists.
Some of them feel it needs to be retired.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/
So Sean Caroll is wrong.
-
But simulated universes exist as computer programmers have simulated them!
I kind of thought it would be obvious to everybody that we were talking about the Universe we live in, not some vastly simplified model in a programmer's computer.
Bostrom has introduced us to the idea of a pop up window appearing telling us what the real nature of the universe is. That casts a question mark over the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis.
Can you suggest an experiment we can perform in principle that would force this pop up to appear? No? Well we can't falsify the hypothesis then.
-
But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists.
Some of them feel it needs to be retired.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/
So Sean Caroll is wrong.
Yeah right! That's so easy isn't it?! LOL!
Many of you are so stuck in old science that neither will you grow nor will you allow science to evolve. You want it to be static to suit your mindset. Very sad! Fortunately all are not like that. :D
-
But simulated universes exist as computer programmers have simulated them!
I kind of thought it would be obvious to everybody that we were talking about the Universe we live in, not some vastly simplified model in a programmer's computer.
Bostrom has introduced us to the idea of a pop up window appearing telling us what the real nature of the universe is. That casts a question mark over the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis.
Can you suggest an experiment we can perform in principle that would force this pop up to appear? No? Well we can't falsify the hypothesis then.
Vastly simplified models are acceptable to science though besides
computers are getting more and more sophisticated all the time and if we are dealing with an intelligent infinitely large and old universe who knows how many Gozilliobytes are possible.
What we have is a situation where the appearance of the pop up confirms the theory. So is the theory unfalsifiable? I don't know if it is in that case.